Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35641659›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology experimental2022

A practical solution to estimate the sample size required for clinical prediction models generated from observational research on data.

Carlos Baeza-Delgado, Leonor Cerdá Alberich, José Miguel Carot-Sierra, Diana Veiga-Canuto, Blanca Martínez de Las Heras, Ben Raza, Luis Martí-Bonmatí

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology experimental, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Carlos Baeza-DelgadoBiomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230-PREBI) at La Fe Health Research Institute and the Imaging La Fe node of the Distributed Network for Biomedical Imaging (ReDIB) Unique Scientific and Technical Infrastructures (ICTS), Valencia, Spain.
Leonor Cerdá AlberichBiomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230-PREBI) at La Fe Health Research Institute and the Imaging La Fe node of the Distributed Network for Biomedical Imaging (ReDIB) Unique Scientific and Technical Infrastructures (ICTS), Valencia, Spain.
José Miguel Carot-SierraDepartment of Applied Statistics, Operations Research and Quality, Universitat Politècnica de València, Valencia, Spain.
Diana Veiga-CanutoRadiology Department, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Blanca Martínez de Las HerasPediatric Oncology Department, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Ben RazaBiomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230-PREBI) at La Fe Health Research Institute and the Imaging La Fe node of the Distributed Network for Biomedical Imaging (ReDIB) Unique Scientific and Technical Infrastructures (ICTS), Valencia, Spain.
Luis Martí-BonmatíBiomedical Imaging Research Group (GIBI230-PREBI) at La Fe Health Research Institute and the Imaging La Fe node of the Distributed Network for Biomedical Imaging (ReDIB) Unique Scientific and Technical Infrastructures (ICTS), Valencia, Spain. marti_lui@gva.es.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8234-010X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEstimating the required sample size is crucial when developing and validating clinical prediction models. However, there is no consensus about how to determine the sample size in such a setting. Here, the goal was to compare available methods to define a practical solution to sample size estimation for clinical predictive models, as applied to Horizon 2020 PRIMAGE as a case study.

methodsThree different methods (Riley's; "rule of thumb" with 10 and 5 events per predictor) were employed to calculate the sample size required to develop predictive models to analyse the variation in sample size as a function of different parameters. Subsequently, the sample size for model validation was also estimated.

resultsTo develop reliable predictive models, 1397 neuroblastoma patients are required, 1060 high-risk neuroblastoma patients and 1345 diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma (DIPG) patients. This sample size can be lowered by reducing the number of variables included in the model, by including direct measures of the outcome to be predicted and/or by increasing the follow-up period. For model validation, the estimated sample size resulted to be 326 patients for neuroblastoma, 246 for high-risk neuroblastoma, and 592 for DIPG.

conclusionsGiven the variability of the different sample sizes obtained, we recommend using methods based on epidemiological data and the nature of the results, as the results are tailored to the specific clinical problem. In addition, sample size can be reduced by lowering the number of parameter predictors, by including direct measures of the outcome of interest.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalNeuroblastomaHumansPrognosisSample SizeClinical predictive modelsPaediatric oncologyPRIMAGERadiologySample size calculation

Identifiers

PMID35641659
PMCPMC9156610

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.